Explore the vast range of titles available.

In a randomized trial involving participants with methamphetamine use disorder, the response among those who received bupropion and naltrexone was 11 percentage points higher than that among participants who received placebo. Adverse events included gastrointestinal disorders.

In this trial involving adult ex-prisoners who had a history of opioid dependence, extended-release naltrexone resulted in a lower rate of opioid relapse than did usual treatment (brief counseling and referrals). The drug did not reduce rates of reincarceration or unsafe sex. Opioid-use disorder is a chronic relapsing condition that has serious public health consequences. Opioid dependence disproportionately affects U.S. criminal justice system populations, and relapse and overdose deaths occur at high rates after release from incarceration. 1 Evidence-based opioid-agonist maintenance therapies for opioid dependence (methadone and buprenorphine) are effective in prison, jail, and community reentry (i.e., parole) settings 2 – 5 but have historically been unavailable or discouraged among criminal justice clients. 6 – 8 Extended-release naltrexone (Vivitrol, Alkermes), a sustained-release monthly injectable formulation of the full mu-opioid receptor antagonist, was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2010 for the prevention of relapse to . . .

Although opioids have known antidepressant activity, their use in major depressive disorder (MDD) has been greatly limited by risk of abuse and addiction. Our aim was to determine whether opioid modulation achieved through a combination of a μ-opioid partial agonist, buprenorphine (BUP), and a potent μ-opioid antagonist, samidorphan (SAM), would demonstrate antidepressant activity without addictive potential. A placebo-controlled crossover study assessed the opioid pharmacodynamic profile following escalating doses of SAM co-administered with BUP in opioid-experienced adults. A subsequent 1-week, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study was conducted in subjects with MDD and an inadequate response to standard antidepressant therapy. This second study evaluated safety and efficacy of ratios of BUP/SAM that were associated with partial and with maximal blockade of opioid responses in the initial study. Pupillometry, visual analog scale assessments, and self-reported questionnaires demonstrated that increasing amounts of SAM added to a fixed dose of BUP resulted in dose-dependent reductions in objective and subjective opioid effects, including euphoria and drug liking, in opioid-experienced adults. Following 7 days of treatment in subjects with MDD, a 1 : 1 ratio of BUP and SAM, the ratio associated with maximal antagonism of opioid effects, exhibited statistically significant improvement vs placebo in HAM-D17 total score (p=0.032) and nearly significant improvement in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score (p=0.054). Overall, BUP/SAM therapy was well tolerated. A combination of BUP and SAM showed antidepressant activity in subjects with MDD. Balanced agonist-antagonist opioid modulation represents a novel and potentially clinically important approach to the treatment of MDD and other psychiatric disorders.

Pathologic alcohol use affects more than 2 billion people and accounts for nearly 6% of all deaths worldwide. There are three medications approved for the treatment of alcohol use disorder by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA): disulfiram, naltrexone (oral and long-acting injectable), and acamprosate. Of growing interest is the use of anticonvulsants for the treatment of alcohol use disorder, although currently none are FDA approved for this indication. Baclofen, a γ-aminobutyric acid B receptor agonist used for spasticity and pain, received temporary approval for alcohol use disorder in France. Despite effective pharmacotherapies, less than 9% of patients who undergo any form of alcohol use disorder treatment receive pharmacotherapies. Current evidence does not support the use of pharmacogenetic testing for treatment individualization. The objective of this review is to provide knowledge on practice parameters for evidenced-based pharmacologic treatment approaches in patients with alcohol use disorder.

This study investigated the safety and efficacy of subcutaneous methylnaltrexone, a μ-opioid–receptor antagonist, for treating opioid-induced constipation in patients with advanced illness. Methylnaltrexone rapidly induced laxation without affecting central analgesia or precipitating withdrawal. This study investigated the safety and efficacy of subcutaneous methylnaltrexone for treating opioid-induced constipation in patients with advanced illness. Methylnaltrexone rapidly induced laxation without affecting central analgesia or precipitating withdrawal. Clinicians often use opioids to treat moderate-to-severe pain; however, opioids frequently induce or aggravate constipation. Empirically, laxative therapy may be burdensome and ineffective and result in temporally unpredictable responses. In addition, severe opioid-induced constipation may limit opioid therapy, worsening analgesia. These drawbacks can substantially compromise the quality of life, especially in patients with advanced illness. Opioid-induced constipation is predominantly mediated by gastrointestinal μ-opioid receptors. 1 , 2 Selective blockade of these peripheral receptors might relieve constipation without compromising centrally mediated effects of opioid analgesia or precipitating withdrawal. N-methylation of the uncharged systemic opioid antagonist, naltrexone, 3 results in a charged derivative, methylnaltrexone, which . . .

Nalmefene is a recent option in alcohol dependence treatment. Its approval was controversial. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the aggregated data (registered as PROSPERO 2014:CRD42014014853) to compare the harm/benefit of nalmefene versus placebo or active comparator in this indication. Three reviewers searched for published and unpublished studies in Medline, the Cochrane Library, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, Current Controlled Trials, and bibliographies and by mailing pharmaceutical companies, the European Medicines Agency (EMA), and the US Food and Drug Administration. Double-blind randomized clinical trials evaluating nalmefene to treat adult alcohol dependence, irrespective of the comparator, were included if they reported (1) health outcomes (mortality, accidents/injuries, quality of life, somatic complications), (2) alcohol consumption outcomes, (3) biological outcomes, or (4) treatment safety outcomes, at 6 mo and/or 1 y. Three authors independently screened the titles and abstracts of the trials identified. Relevant trials were evaluated in full text. The reviewers independently assessed the included trials for methodological quality using the Cochrane Collaboration tool for assessing risk of bias. On the basis of the I2 index or the Cochrane's Q test, fixed or random effect models were used to estimate risk ratios (RRs), mean differences (MDs), or standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% CIs. In sensitivity analyses, outcomes for participants who were lost to follow-up were included using baseline observation carried forward (BOCF); for binary measures, patients lost to follow-up were considered equal to failures (i.e., non-assessed patients were recorded as not having responded in both groups). Five randomized controlled trials (RCTs) versus placebo, with a total of 2,567 randomized participants, were included in the main analysis. None of these studies was performed in the specific population defined by the EMA approval of nalmefene, i.e., adults with alcohol dependence who consume more than 60 g of alcohol per day (for men) or more than 40 g per day (for women). No RCT compared nalmefene with another medication. Mortality at 6 mo (RR = 0.39, 95% CI [0.08; 2.01]) and 1 y (RR = 0.98, 95% CI [0.04; 23.95]) and quality of life at 6 mo (SF-36 physical component summary score: MD = 0.85, 95% CI [-0.32; 2.01]; SF-36 mental component summary score: MD = 1.01, 95% CI [-1.33; 3.34]) were not different across groups. Other health outcomes were not reported. Differences were encountered for alcohol consumption outcomes such as monthly number of heavy drinking days at 6 mo (MD = -1.65, 95% CI [-2.41; -0.89]) and at 1 y (MD = -1.60, 95% CI [-2.85; -0.35]) and total alcohol consumption at 6 mo (SMD = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.30; -0.10]). An attrition bias could not be excluded, with more withdrawals for nalmefene than for placebo, including more withdrawals for safety reasons at both 6 mo (RR = 3.65, 95% CI [2.02; 6.63]) and 1 y (RR = 7.01, 95% CI [1.72; 28.63]). Sensitivity analyses showed no differences for alcohol consumption outcomes between nalmefene and placebo, but the weight of these results should not be overestimated, as the BOCF approach to managing withdrawals was used. The value of nalmefene for treatment of alcohol addiction is not established. At best, nalmefene has limited efficacy in reducing alcohol consumption.

Opioid dependence is associated with low rates of treatment-seeking, poor adherence to treatment, frequent relapse, and major societal consequences. We aimed to assess the efficacy, safety, and patient-reported outcomes of an injectable, once monthly extended-release formulation of the opioid antagonist naltrexone (XR-NTX) for treatment of patients with opioid dependence after detoxification. We did a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised, 24-week trial of patients with opioid dependence disorder. Patients aged 18 years or over who had 30 days or less of inpatient detoxification and 7 days or more off all opioids were enrolled at 13 clinical sites in Russia. We randomly assigned patients (1:1) to either 380 mg XR-NTX or placebo by an interactive voice response system, stratified by site and gender in a centralised, permuted-block method. Participants also received 12 biweekly counselling sessions. Participants, investigators, staff, and the sponsor were masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was the response profile for confirmed abstinence during weeks 5–24, assessed by urine drug tests and self report of non-use. Secondary endpoints were self-reported opioid-free days, opioid craving scores, number of days of retention, and relapse to physiological opioid dependence. Analyses were by intention to treat. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00678418. Between July 3, 2008, and Oct 5, 2009, 250 patients were randomly assigned to XR-NTX (n=126) or placebo (n=124). The median proportion of weeks of confirmed abstinence was 90·0% (95% CI 69·9–92·4) in the XR-NTX group compared with 35·0% (11·4–63·8) in the placebo group (p=0·0002). Patients in the XR-NTX group self-reported a median of 99·2% (range 89·1–99·4) opioid-free days compared with 60·4% (46·2–94·0) for the placebo group (p=0·0004). The mean change in craving was −10·1 (95% CI −12·3 to −7·8) in the XR-NTX group compared with 0·7 (−3·1 to 4·4) in the placebo group (p<0·0001). Median retention was over 168 days in the XR-NTX group compared with 96 days (95% CI 63–165) in the placebo group (p=0·0042). Naloxone challenge confirmed relapse to physiological opioid dependence in 17 patients in the placebo group compared with one in the XR-NTX group (p<0·0001). XR-NTX was well tolerated. Two patients in each group discontinued owing to adverse events. No XR-NTX-treated patients died, overdosed, or discontinued owing to severe adverse events. XR-NTX represents a new treatment option that is distinct from opioid agonist maintenance treatment. XR-NTX in conjunction with psychosocial treatment might improve acceptance of opioid dependence pharmacotherapy and provide a useful treatment option for many patients. Alkermes.

Opioid use disorder is highly prevalent and can be fatal. At least 2.1 million Americans 12 years and older had opioid use disorder in 2016, and approximately 47,000 Americans died from opioid overdoses in 2017. Opioid use disorder is a chronic relapsing condition, the treatment of which falls within the scope of practice of family physicians. With appropriate medication-assisted treatment, patients are more likely to enter full recovery. Methadone and buprenorphine are opioid agonists that reduce mortality, opioid use, and HIV and hepatitis C virus transmission while increasing treatment retention. Intramuscular naltrexone is not as well studied and is harder to initiate than opioid agonists because of the need to abstain for approximately one week before the first dose. However, among those who start naltrexone, it can reduce opioid use and craving. Choosing the correct medication for a given patient depends on patient preference, local availability of opioid treatment programs, anticipated effectiveness, and adverse effects. Discontinuation of pharmacotherapy increases the risk of relapse; therefore, patients should be encouraged to continue treatment indefinitely. Many patients with opioid use disorder are treated in primary care, where effective addiction treatment can be provided. Family physicians are ideally positioned to diagnose opioid use disorder, provide evidence-based treatment with buprenorphine or naltrexone, refer patients for methadone as appropriate, and lead the response to the current opioid crisis.

Clinical guidelines remain unclear on which medications for gambling disorder are to be preferred in terms of efficacy and tolerability. We aimed to compare pharmacological treatments for gambling disorder in terms of efficacy and tolerability, using network meta-analysis (NMA). Based on our pre-registered protocol [CRD42022329520], a structured search was conducted across broad range of databases, for double-blind randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of medications for gambling disorder. Data were independently extracted by two researchers. We used standardized mean differences (SMD) using Hedges' g to measure the efficacy outcomes, and for the effect for tolerability we used dropout rate due to medication side effects, expressed as odds ratio (OR). Confidence in the network estimates was assessed using the CINeMA framework. We followed the PRISMA-NMA guidelines for this work. Outcomes were gambling symptom severity and quality of life (for efficacy), and tolerability. We included 22 RCTs in the systematic review and 16 RCTs (n = 977 participants) in the NMA. Compared with placebo, moderate confidence evidence indicated that nalmefene [Standardized Mean Difference (SMD): −0.86; 95 % confidence interval (CI: −1.32,-0.41)] reduced gambling severity, followed by naltrexone (SMD: -0.42; 95 %CI: (−0.85,0.01)). Naltrexone (SMD: -0.50; 95 %CI: (−0.85,-0.14)) and nalmefene (SMD: -0.36; 95 %CI: (−0.72,-0.01) were also more beneficial than placebo in terms of quality of life. Olanzapine and topiramate were not more efficacious than placebo. Nalmefene [Odds Ratio (OR): 7.55; 95 %CI: (2.24–25.41)] and naltrexone (OR: 7.82; 95 %CI: (1.26–48.70)) had significantly higher dropout due to side effects (lower tolerability) compared with placebo. Based on NMA, nalmefene and naltrexone currently have the most supportive evidence for the pharmacological treatment of gambling disorder. Further clinical trials of novel compounds, and analysis of individual participant data are needed, to strengthen the evidence base, and help tailor treatments at the individual patient level. •Network meta-analysis (NMA) indicated that nalmefene and naltrexone have the most evidence for the treatment of gambling disorder.•Naltrexone and nalmefene were also more beneficial than placebo in terms of improving quality of life.•Nalmefene and naltrexone had significantly lower tolerability compared with placebo.•Olanzapine and topiramate were not more efficacious than placebo.

Background Naltrexone is an opioid antagonist used in many different conditions, both licensed and unlicensed. It is used at widely varying doses from 3 to 250 mg. The aim of this review was to extensively evaluate the safety of oral naltrexone by examining the risk of serious adverse events and adverse events in randomised controlled trials of naltrexone compared to placebo. Methods A systematic search of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, other databases and clinical trials registries was undertaken up to May 2018. Parallel placebo-controlled randomised controlled trials longer than 4 weeks published after 1 January 2001 of oral naltrexone at any dose were selected. Any condition or age group was included, excluding only studies in opioid or ex-opioid users owing to possible opioid/opioid antagonist interactions. The systematic review used the guidance of the Cochrane Handbook and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses harms checklist throughout. Numerical data were independently extracted by two people and cross-checked. Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. Meta-analyses were performed in R using random effects models throughout. Results Eighty-nine randomised controlled trials with 11,194 participants were found, studying alcohol use disorders (n = 38), various psychiatric disorders (n = 13), impulse control disorders (n = 9), other addictions including smoking (n = 18), obesity or eating disorders (n = 6), Crohn’s disease (n = 2), fibromyalgia (n = 1) and cancers (n = 2). Twenty-six studies (4,960 participants) recorded serious adverse events occurring by arm of study. There was no evidence of increased risk of serious adverse events for naltrexone compared to placebo (risk ratio 0.84, 95% confidence interval 0.66–1.06). Sensitivity analyses pooling risk differences supported this conclusion (risk difference −0.01, 95% confidence interval −0.02–0.00) and subgroup analyses showed that results were consistent across different doses and disease groups. Secondary analysis revealed only six marginally significant adverse events for naltrexone compared to placebo, which were of mild severity. Conclusions Naltrexone does not appear to increase the risk of serious adverse events over placebo. These findings confirm the safety of oral naltrexone when used in licensed indications and encourage investments to undertake efficacy studies in unlicensed indications. Trial registration PROSPERO 2017 CRD42017054421 .